The way the questions were selected was mostly the result of the random pages selected when I used a PDF splitter to divide the Cambridge packet into random 2-3 page sections to print. The result was a fairly accurate difficulty distribution for questions with difficulties 1-3, as in some questions came from the beginning, middle, and end of their respective difficulties. Unfortunately, for questions with difficulty 4 I only printed out the last 8 games from each section because I was making sure to include the answer sheet. The end result is that for difficulty 4 questions, I only did the 8 most difficult passages from PTs 2-38 meaning my results may not necessarily be indicative of my performance on average difficulty 4 questions. Nevertheless, I want to get my accuracy even for the most difficult questions up to at least 70%.

Gluteus wrote:I'm excited to begin some LR preparation tomorrow. I haven't touched LR in over a year, but when I first began studying for the LSAT, LR was the first section I worked on. It's my favourite section in terms of content and seems to be the area where I'm most naturally talented.

A strong performance on LR during the real LSAT 43-44+/50 would almost guarantee I score high enough to get into the law schools I want to. Luckily, such a score is only slightly above where I was averaging for timed sections when I was practising last.

My study plan to get re-acquainted with LR is to read through Manhattan LR again. After I finish a chapter on a given question type I will drill and review 25-75 questions of that type from the Cambridge packets.

I'm currently in the process of finishing the final drill through of the Cambridge packets where I make the official list of games to re-print for fool proofing. But for the most part, my main drilling of LG from the Cambridge packets is over since I already did each game 2-4 times and likely won't have more than 15 games that need to be fool proofed.

Started LR before finishing LG to preserve my sanity. Drilling can be so tedious after awhile. Especially when doing games that require almost no thought whatsoever. At this point during the vast majority of the Cambridge games I'm humming or whistling and doing weird shit with my body language to keep myself entertained since everything but 1-4 games from each section require no effort anymore.

Gluteus wrote:I'm excited to begin some LR preparation tomorrow. I haven't touched LR in over a year, but when I first began studying for the LSAT, LR was the first section I worked on. It's my favourite section in terms of content and seems to be the area where I'm most naturally talented.

A strong performance on LR during the real LSAT 43-44+/50 would almost guarantee I score high enough to get into the law schools I want to. Luckily, such a score is only slightly above where I was averaging for timed sections when I was practising last.

My study plan to get re-acquainted with LR is to read through Manhattan LR again. After I finish a chapter on a given question type I will drill and review 25-75 questions of that type from the Cambridge packets.

I'm currently in the process of finishing the final drill through of the Cambridge packets where I make the official list of games to re-print for fool proofing. But for the most part, my main drilling of LG from the Cambridge packets is over since I already did each game 2-4 times and likely won't have more than 15 games that need to be fool proofed.

Started LR before finishing LG to preserve my sanity. Drilling can be so tedious after awhile. Especially when doing games that require almost no thought whatsoever. At this point during the vast majority of the Cambridge games I'm humming or whistling and doing weird shit with my body language to keep myself entertained since everything but 1-4 games from each section require no effort anymore.

Okay, Makes sense. and haha thats funny. Good place to be in I suppose haha

I was offline for a while after we discussed it, but fwiw I got in touch with Mastermind and sent my watch back a couple of days ago. It hasn't been refunded yet but they said they would refund my purchase minus the cost of shipping once they received it

Last edited by Anon-e-miss on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How do you guys drill for LR? Or how would you recommend drilling? My first month of studying I read through the LSAT Trainer LR section. I've moved on to Manhattan LG, but of course I want to drill LR now. I have all the Cambridge LR question sets and have most, if not all, of the PTs. I'd like to spend the beginning of my daily studying with LR drilling, then get into studying LG. Any suggestions for doing this? Aiming to test in Dec. btw.

LR: Again, most questions missed were due to not thoroughly reading. Had a couple answers that I misread and I misunderstood one of the questions. This is getting frustrating, but I think it's because I haven't done extensive LR studying (extensive meaning doing LR questions after having worked for a while that day).

RC: This RC section bothered me the entire way through. I did this test cold and definitely felt it. I'm going to return to doing an RC a day and hope that helps.

LG: The one I missed was because I misread an answer. Glad I'm in a -1/-0 space with LG, that's what I've spent most of my study time on.

Overall: A little annoyed I'm hanging around the low 170's, but the last couple weeks haven't been the most productive because of work and travel, so I suppose it was irrational to expect improvement without having done anything to earn it. The positive side of me is glad that I seem to have solidified a 172-ish floor, which is a score I would be happy but not thrilled with in September. Luckily, the next two weeks of studying for me are scheduled to be the most rigorous of the summer before I shift to PT'ing more often.

Anon-e-miss wrote:I was offline for a while after we discussed it, but fwiw I got in touch with Mastermind and sent my watch back a couple of days ago. It hasn't been refunded yet but they said they would refund my purchase minus the cost of shipping once they received it

Good on them. Honestly feel kinda bad for all these watch companies that are essentially left to die because of some ridiculous lsac rule.

My first pt since june, feel decent/good about it. Honestly think that the last two, lr and rc were affected by fatigue quite a bit (rlly have to work on this). Timing, surprisingly, was great. Had a couple of minutes to spare for each section (didn't use this go to back and double check - def have to do this). Didn't br this as I was so anxious to see where I'm at.

Last edited by caramelizedgod on Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

What are your timing goals in a LR section and what are some strategies regarding timing you use?

I am consistently hitting -3-4 LR and finish in enough time, however, the 26 Q sections are tight and I keep missing around 2 questions that are stupid mistakes in the middle of the section because I intensify and force myself to speed up. Almost certainly it appears as if my mistakes can be attributed to timing issues and not so much as to accuracy.

abujabal wrote:Great advice! This should help me out too. I am at that -3-4 point right now. Yeah I was getting like 3 Assumption Fam questions wrong on avg and then I drilled them by type for like 3-4 days while intensely reviewing the material in the LR Bible and the MH LR book and I havent gotten any wrong since. Of course, there is that crazy one that comes out of nowhere but for the most part I feel extremely comfortable with them

jagerbom79 wrote:

abujabal wrote:Youll get over the hump--just keep grinding. That 168-170 hump is the hardest. Idk just keep reviewing and drilling. Looks like its the Assumption family throwing you off. we are the opposite lol in LR. Im scoring around the same as you, but I keep getting Inference Questions (Mainly Most Strongly Supp) wrong

In my break, I had a protein bar and trail mix.

Thanks! What's the MH LR book? - only thing that doesn't come to mind when I read your reply. Regarding the LR Bible - are you just reading it, or how are you using the book? It seems to be a little "listy" to me, ie, here are the various types of flaw questions. Is there a specific strategy you're using? Also, any thoughts on how to drill the ones you're getting wrong consistently?

creed wrote:

abujabal wrote:Thinking clearly-- one of the best pieces of advice I heard about the LSAT applies best to LR: there is no such thing as a 50/50 question. If you think two answers both seem kinda right, you're misreading or misunderstanding. This sounds small, but it made a big difference for me. I think it'll help you too. Having your BR + real scores be basically the same means that something isn't clicking. (I've come to believe this is actually preferable to being stuck with really low BR and meh real scores but I can't really justify that)

Makes sense, thank you! Question on the BR thing - the reason they stay the same is largely because I don't seem to be identifying which ones I'm getting wrong at all. So on the -6 RC, for instance, I got 5 wrong and didn't even mark them for blind review, and 1 was a doubled error. Any thoughts on how to beat that?

abujabal wrote:Great advice! This should help me out too. I am at that -3-4 point right now. Yeah I was getting like 3 Assumption Fam questions wrong on avg and then I drilled them by type for like 3-4 days while intensely reviewing the material in the LR Bible and the MH LR book and I havent gotten any wrong since. Of course, there is that crazy one that comes out of nowhere but for the most part I feel extremely comfortable with them

jagerbom79 wrote:

abujabal wrote:Youll get over the hump--just keep grinding. That 168-170 hump is the hardest. Idk just keep reviewing and drilling. Looks like its the Assumption family throwing you off. we are the opposite lol in LR. Im scoring around the same as you, but I keep getting Inference Questions (Mainly Most Strongly Supp) wrong

In my break, I had a protein bar and trail mix.

Thanks! What's the MH LR book? - only thing that doesn't come to mind when I read your reply. Regarding the LR Bible - are you just reading it, or how are you using the book? It seems to be a little "listy" to me, ie, here are the various types of flaw questions. Is there a specific strategy you're using? Also, any thoughts on how to drill the ones you're getting wrong consistently?

creed wrote:

abujabal wrote:Thinking clearly-- one of the best pieces of advice I heard about the LSAT applies best to LR: there is no such thing as a 50/50 question. If you think two answers both seem kinda right, you're misreading or misunderstanding. This sounds small, but it made a big difference for me. I think it'll help you too. Having your BR + real scores be basically the same means that something isn't clicking. (I've come to believe this is actually preferable to being stuck with really low BR and meh real scores but I can't really justify that)

Makes sense, thank you! Question on the BR thing - the reason they stay the same is largely because I don't seem to be identifying which ones I'm getting wrong at all. So on the -6 RC, for instance, I got 5 wrong and didn't even mark them for blind review, and 1 was a doubled error. Any thoughts on how to beat that?

The MH LR= Manhattan LR book. I mainly rely on this, not the LR Bible. Like you said, the Bible is too listy whereas the MH book is more to "How you think/approach a situation" Which I like better. I only go back to the Bible if I want a second perspective compared to the MH Book.

jagerbom79 wrote:The MH LR= Manhattan LR book. I mainly rely on this, not the LR Bible. Like you said, the Bible is too listy whereas the MH book is more to "How you think/approach a situation" Which I like better. I only go back to the Bible if I want a second perspective compared to the MH Book.

Oh duh yeah. Well that's in the shopping cart right now then. I suppose it's money well spent, plus if I don't mark it up I imagine that there's a lovely TLS resale market.

jagerbom79 wrote:The MH LR= Manhattan LR book. I mainly rely on this, not the LR Bible. Like you said, the Bible is too listy whereas the MH book is more to "How you think/approach a situation" Which I like better. I only go back to the Bible if I want a second perspective compared to the MH Book.

Oh duh yeah. Well that's in the shopping cart right now then. I suppose it's money well spent, plus if I don't mark it up I imagine that there's a lovely TLS resale market.

Its definitely worth it. You bought the bible or the Manhattan book? I forgot to answer your other questions so...

I already read through all the books and took notes on them. When i get questions wrong (lets say a FLaw q), I will go back to my notes and review the flaw question stuff that I originally had taken from the MH book and then drill ~10 questions at a time. In a day, I usually will do upwards of 30 or so of that type but after 10 i stop and do a game or take a break to space them out. Often in addition to my notes I will go back to the MH LR book itself and reread the chapter on that question tytpe. And if Im still having trouble I will revisit the bible and see if I can beef up my understanding from that. Probably only 1 book is necessary but since I have both, I reckon I might as well utilize my resources. With that being said, the MH LR book is my go to LR book.

Notes for improvement:1. I've noticed that one of the most common reasons I'm missing questions is because I dismiss an answer I find attractive because I am misapplying a concept I learned in Manhattan LR. Luckily, I suspect after enough drilling I will no longer get questions wrong because of this.

2. I don't yet have my knowledge of the characteristics of right and wrong answers down yet. I dismissed a question today because I didn't know a right answer was allowed to simply state that given the premises, the conclusion can't be true.

3. I took too long today on a question because I was too focused on the premises and the conclusion, but never bothered to take a quick glance at the background information again. The background information framed one of the premises, and as soon as I re-read it I knew the answer.

4. Some of the harder questions make it hard to clearly identify the argument. I think this will be improved on in time as I become more familiar with premise and conclusion cues and gain more experience with LR passages in general. I've only completed around 160 questions since I began my LR preparation yesterday and by the test I'm anticipating having completed over 2000 questions. I have no doubt this will result in an improvement in this area. Additionally, I plan on implementing around half an hour per LR day where I just dissect difficult passages--write out the conclusion and premises. Look at the cues. See where the passage tries to fool the reader. Look for phrase/wording shifts, etc. Basically what a person might be asked to do in a critical thinking assignment.

Needing a minimum of 167-173 for some of you must be crazy stressful. For Canadian schools, assuming a decent GPA, the only school that require an LSAT anywhere near that high would be the University of Toronto. Since I'm Canadian, and not aiming for the University of Toronto, a 163 or above would get me where I want to go. Ideally though I'd like a minimum of 165-166.

Despite needing only -23 to -20 depending on the curve, I too can feel some stress. Mainly from the thought of a nightmare logic game or RC passage.

Anyway, off to drill 100 LR questions in the strengthen/weaken category.

Gluteus wrote:Needing a minimum of 167-173 for some of you must be crazy stressful. For Canadian schools, assuming a decent GPA, the only school that require an LSAT anywhere near that high would be the University of Toronto. Since I'm Canadian, and not aiming for the University of Toronto, a 163 or above would get me where I want to go. Ideally though I'd like a minimum of 165-166.

Despite needing only -23 to -20 depending on the curve, I too can feel some stress. Mainly from the thought of a nightmare logic game or RC passage.

Anyway, off to drill 100 LR questions in the strengthen/weaken category.

Im Canadian aiming for Uoft but my gpa/transcript is all over the place so aiming for a 170-175 atleast.